Well colin if your such a mind reader why do you need me to define things.

Quite simple actually. Because first. Your made up terms have no meaning hence you cannot define them. Second you are such a prolific liar
that unless you are tied down to a defined term you will lie like a sewer rat and alter what you say they mean instead of accepting your wrong.

So you agree that clothing doesn't grow in the wild.

Again you are telling me what I agree with. What I dont agree with is they are made by magic.

Redundant adaptation means an excessive amount of steps are used just in allowing us to adapt. In other words we failed to evolve.

In other words if I am to take this as a definition Redundant adaption is a meaningless term. Thanks, now stop using it.

Quit being a stoop, anyone knows that a heating element in a dryer is not natural heat. My god how is it you understand evolution but not the simplest
of things.

Explain how the heat in a dryer is generated.

If its anything more than one step, then its redundant.

You need to learn what redundant means.

If your trying to be an incredulous horses ass, your succeeding.

Why, because you claimed ants harvested chemicals. Why, because you still maintained that ants harvesting chemicals was natural even though
they dont. I would call you a rear end but you know what. Most rear ends have more brains than you have shown here.

Not at all, I learned about speciation, microevolution and macroevolution, and after so came to the decision that the facts speak for them self.
Evolution is not real. It doesn't apply to humans and its never been witnessed outside of some aquatic life, bacteria, viruses, and some insects.

Shame you cant and have not been able to prove it.

Just because your pretending to play stupid, and your not fooling me LOL, doesn't mean your right. You can ask the same pathetic questions over and
over, they don't change. You can also pretend to not understand definitions when I have sent you direct links to wiki definitions. Just the most
incredulous coward I have ever seen in my life.

And here you go crying like a baby. You ask the same questions over and over again and we are expected to keep spoon feeding you.

You gave the definition to the wrong thing. 'WILDLIFE' and 'IN THE WILD' are very different and then claimed it better than WILD which again is very
different to both the others.

A definition is meant to define meaning. You have failed in the most tragic way because you dont even understand you have failed.

It's what you have resorted to since you couldn't win a debate with me, so you resorted to profiling me, and when that didn't work you decided to try
to ignore the definitions.

You have never entered into debate. All you have done is offered unfounded rubbish and claimed it to be the truth and rejected all the
evidence showing it to be false without considering it.

PS define PROFILING

Even worse is lying along the way, like saying we all live in the wild when the definition on wiki clearly says differently

Is diddums haveing a tantrum? I have never said we all live in the wild so yet another lie by you. And you have not given your definition of
'IN THE WILD'. Suck your thumb for five minutes. Maybe treat yourself to some toilet paper and toothpaste.

Well I never said that all or even most others have target food, especially since it even tells us in the bible that a lot of species were brought
here, means they probably won't have target food.

Here you go again. You have spent over 300 pages ranting on about only humans have no target food and suddenly you change that because you are
failing big time. Now maybe you understand why I want you to define 'target food' because in less than a page you will revert again to 'only humans
have no target food'.

I don't know what you mean by OR option.

It was very clear. #1 OR #2 OR #3 (#4 ruled out, no definiton). You could have chosen #1 AND #2 AND #3 but you did not. That was your choice.
So for an apple to be classed as target food by your accepted definiton it only has to tick one box. It ticked 2. It is target food.

Do you feel there is something wrong with eating toilet paper and toothpaste, please explain.

It would appear it is your target food. Enjoy.

Then thank you for proving my statement, by avoiding an answer.

To quote you. It did not have a question mark so why would I answer it?

Sorry I'm not a big Potter fan, but I can tell that you are. This could be why your not able to understand a lot of things from wiki. Wiki is non
fiction, not sci fi.

I can seperate reality from magic, myth and fantasy which you have shown to be unable. Wiki also contains definitions but saddly none of your
made up terms can be found there. Perhaps because they are sci fi

Quite simple actually. Because first. Your made up terms have no meaning hence you cannot define them. Second you are such a prolific liar that unless
you are tied down to a defined term you will lie like a sewer rat and alter what you say they mean instead of accepting your wrong.

Sure and let me just take your word for that seeing how your the only one telling me this. I don't lie, but I have caught you in a few,
and one is claiming that I never gave definitions, while your just not accepting them.

Again you are telling me what I agree with. What I dont agree with is they are made by magic.

And again your agreeing by avoiding the answer.

In other words if I am to take this as a definition Redundant adaption is a meaningless term. Thanks, now stop using it.

It's only meaning less to someone with a pea brain. And why is it your the ONLY one that isn't understanding it?

Explain how the heat in a dryer is generated.

Through electricity which is also generated by man made machines.

You need to learn what redundant means.

I see, and your going to teach me? No thanks, I know how to read and understand but I'll get back to you on that one.

Why, because you claimed ants harvested chemicals. Why, because you still maintained that ants harvesting chemicals was natural eve thought they dont.
I would call you a rear end but you know what. Most rear ends have more brains than you have shown here.

Then why do you act like you just can't understand it.

Shame you cant and have not been able to prove it.

You can't prove something that has never been proven to begin with.

And here you go crying like a baby. You ask the same questions over and over again and we are expected to keep spoon feeding you.

You gave the definition to the wrong thing. 'WILDLIFE' and 'IN THE WILD' are very different and then claimed it better than WILD which again is
very different to both the others.

A definition is meant to define meaning. You have failed in the most tragic way because you dont even understand you have failed.

Well its not that I failed it's more like you ran out of incredulous tactics.

You have never entered into debate. All you have done is offered unfounded rubbish and claimed it to be the truth and rejected all the evidence
showing it to be false without considering it.

PS define PROFILING

No I'm not your wiki any longer, you can google it just like anyone else can. It's all the English language so you should , I stress
should have no problem. I bet you will though.

Is diddums haveing a tantrum? I have never said we all live in the wild so yet another lie by you. And you have not given your definition of 'IN THE
WILD'. Suck your thumb for five minutes. Maybe treat yourself to some toilet paper and toothpaste.

My definition of in the wild.

In the wild: To be anywhere in the outside, away from civilization, or closer to animals of the outdoors.

Sure and let me just take your word for that seeing how your the only one telling me this. I don't lie, but I have caught you in a few, and one is
claiming that I never gave definitions, while your just not accepting them.

Everyone here has called you a liar and many times.

And again your agreeing by avoiding the answer.

You got your answer, you just did not like it. Shame.

It's only meaning less to someone with a pea brain. And why is it your the ONLY one that isn't understanding it?

Its pretty meaningless to you as well because you cannot supply a definition.

Through electricity which is also generated by man made machines.

Oh this is a special reply from you. So electricity in not natural? Is it electrickery? Machines, generators produce electricity because we
know and understand how nature works. i.e. electomagnetic forces. All natural.

You really have no education at all do you.

I see, and your going to teach me? No thanks, I know how to read and understand but I'll get back to you on that one.

I see no proof of that. In fact I see the opposite but it is warming to see you are going off to learn about a word you obviously did not
understand.

Then why do you act like you just can't understand it.

It is not an act. I do not understand how you can say that an ant harvesting chemicals is natural when an ant does not harvest chemicals.
Please explain to me how you arrived at your conclusion.

I also do not understand how after all the times you have had the processes explained to you that ants do which you dismissed you can be so wrong to
think ants harvest chemicals. Explain that as well.

You can't prove something that has never been proven to begin with.

Then why are you trying to disprove it? the same logic should apply.

Well its not that I failed it's more like you ran out of incredulous tactics.

Nope. You failed big time and. Define 'IN THE WILD' still waiting

No I'm not your wiki any longer, you can google it just like anyone else can. It's all the English language so you should , I stress should have no
problem. I bet you will though.

Trouble is no one can google your moronical made up terms, not even you. They dont exist which is why you failed to define any.

My definition of in the wild.
In the wild: To be anywhere in the outside, away from civilization, or closer to animals of the outdoors.
Thats your last tooth wiki for the month.

Now that is pretty pathetic to be honest. Anywhere in the outside. Outside of what? Away from Civilisation. Your
not going to like it but what do you call civilisation. Best of all. 'closer to animals of the outdoors'. Bravo. That is the thickest thing I have
read since your last post.

What is 'closer to the animals of the outdoors'? That is the wording of a five year old and you think it is a definition? Surely not. Your pulling my
leg.

Well thats pretty rich coming from you and considering that I haven't lied about anything.

You got your answer, you just did not like it. Shame.

Now your lying.

Its pretty meaningless to you as well because you cannot supply a definition.

My definitions are the same that wiki would offer. If you
don't know how to use google, thats not my problem. I'm not going to feed into your delusion by not acknowledging my answers.

Oh this is a special reply from you. So electricity in not natural? Is it electrickery? Machines, generators produce electricity because we know and
understand how nature works. i.e. electomagnetic forces. All natural.

Any moron knows that electricy that comes out of a light socket isn't
natural, your just being a retarded ingus.

You really have no education at all do you.

I have enough of an education to know electricty is not natural, unlike you. Were you born in a
barn?

I see no proof of that. In fact I see the opposite but it is warming to see you are going off to learn about a word you obviously did not understand.

You don't see anything, you are the see no monkey, the hear no monkey and the I don't understand please give me your definition monkey.
Either way you slice it, your a monkey.

It is not an act. I do not understand how you can say that an ant harvesting chemicals is natural when an ant does not harvest chemicals. Please
explain to me how you arrived at your conclusion.

Oh well then I missunderstood, maybe the use chemicals, either way, its not how humans do it.

I also do not understand how after all the times you have had the processes explained to you that ants do which you dismissed you can be so wrong to
think ants harvest chemicals. Explain that as well.

Youll have to go back to the link I offered about wild animals, and take it from wiki cause thats the best your going to get.

Trouble is no one can google your moronical made up terms, not even you. They dont exist which is why you failed to define any.

I didn't
fail, you moron, you failed to cover them up by being incredulous.

Now that is pretty pathetic to be honest. Anywhere outside. Outside of what? Away from Civilisation. Your not going to like it but what do you call
civilisation. Best of all. 'closer to animals of the outdoors'. Bravo. That is the thickest thing I have read since your last post.

What is 'closer to the animals of the outdoors'? That is the wording of a five year old and you think it is a definition? Surely not. Your pulling
my leg.

Well I guess I failed to realize that these terms don't apply to you because you grew up in a barn.

Well thats pretty rich coming from you and considering that I haven't lied about anything.

Obvious and provable lie

Now your lying.

Nope. Your sulking

My definitions are the same that wiki would offer. If you don't know how to use google, thats not my problem. I'm not going to feed into your
delusion by not acknowledging my answers.

You gave one definition from wiki and it was the wrong thing 'WILDLIFE instead od IN THE WILD' you have linked to nothing else. Before you
try to spam a list remember I will read them so you better had as well.

Any moron knows that electricy that comes out of a light socket isn't natural, your just being a retarded ingus.

Correct. Only a moron would know electicity comes out of a light socket and only a real top notch moron would claim it is not natural.

I have enough of an education to know electricty is not natural, unlike you. Were you born in a barn?

Again proving you have no education at all

You don't see anything, you are the see no monkey, the hear no monkey and the I don't understand please give me your definition monkey. Either way
you slice it, your a monkey.

I take it you are having trouble with understanding 'redundant' or is it that you looked it up and found you have misused the word?

Oh well then I missunderstood, maybe the use chemicals, either way, its not how humans do it.

Not the point. You claimed harvesting chemicals was natural for the ant yet ants do not harvest chemicals. Again explain how you reached the
conclusion that ants harvesting chemicals was natural?

Probably because I had head it so much that I drowned it out now.

Probably because you never took the time to read or understand the information spoon fed to you. You were to busy running from the truth.

Well I never said that all or even most others have target food, especially since it even tells us in the bible that a lot of species were brought
here, means they probably won't have target food.

My reply:

Here you go again. You have spent over 300 pages ranting on about only humans have no target food and suddenly you change that because you are failing
big time. Now maybe you understand why I want you to define 'target food' because in less than a page you will revert again to 'only humans have no
target food'.

I would like to point out his little fantasy is crumbling.

He maintains 'he never said that all or even most others have target food'. So if now most others dont have target food which includes us where does
that leave all his other arguments?

1. They dont know they are from here because they have no 'target food'
2. Because they have no 'target food' they have to eat the wrong food which will make them sick.
3. They have to process all their food because it is not 'target food'.
4. Those few that have 'target food' will find competition for it due to those without it eating that as well. So even those with target food will
struggle, they may even become extinct if they alone cannot survive without their target food.
5. It may even be that evolution is driven by those with no 'target food' whereas those with target food have no need to evolve
6. They will have to drink milk because they have no target food. (even though they dont)

Surely a science major wouldn't forget about these forms of "natural" electricity.....and yes they are EXACTLY the same electricity that comes outta
the holes in the wall, ya know where you put the pointy things to make things go.

~ETA~

FYI....heat is generated by friction regardless of source, i.e sun, fire, hair dyer, rubbing your hands together. It all is a "natural" process, just
different ways to get there.....

Yep and electricity does not come out of any socket. It is the current that flows through a circuit. The element of an electric fire produces
heat because it resists the flow of that current. As you say, friction.

You gave one definition from wiki and it was the wrong thing 'WILDLIFE instead od IN THE WILD' you have linked to nothing else. Before you try to
spam a list remember I will read them so you better had as well

You still dont get it do you? I asked for a definition of 'IN THE WILD' linking me to WILD is not that definition Jeeze tooth keep up.

Electricty that comes out of a light socket is not natural you idiot, its not harvested naturally, its not controlled naturally, its not transported
or delivered naturally.

You really do not understand electricity either do you? For a start you do not harvest electrical power you generate it. Electricity does not
come out of a light socket if it did a light socket without a bulb would mean you would have a puddle of electricity below it. Of course it is
controlled you wingnut otherwise your supply would vary wildly. It is channelled via cables just as river water flows in a river. All natural.
edit: You dont think an electrical plant is something grown in a field, due to the term electrical field do you? Is this why you believe it is
harvested. Surely not.

Not at all, I allready gave you the synonym. I take it your realizing for the first time that maybe you were using the wrong definition of it.

Keep digging the hole boy. I will be happy to put you in it. Define redundant. Define synonym.

Thats what I remember you telling me, next your going to tell me its magic.

Then you remember wrongly. That should not stop you from explaining why you said ants harvesting chemicals when they dont was natural or
describing how you came to that conclusion.

Well I do take anything from you with a grain of salt.

So you did not read the information I provided on ants yet dismissed them anyhow. How dishonest.

He maintains 'he never said that all or even most others have target food'. So if now most others dont have target food which includes us where does
that leave all his other arguments?

Well since no other species has the ability to adapt to the degree that we do, I would say it leaves us
pretty well off.

1. They dont know they are from here because they have no 'target food'

Aside from humans, most things here have target food.

2. Because they have no 'target food' they have to eat the wrong food which will make them sick.

Humans yes, other species would become scavengers.

3. They have to process all their food because it is not 'target food'

Humans yes, I don't know of anything else that does so.

4. Those few that have 'target food' will find competition for it due to those without it eating that as well. So even those with target food will
struggle, they may even become extinct if they alone cannot survive without their target food.

Well I'm actually impressed colin, I had no
idea that you could see into things so well. This scenerio is possible but will most likely knock off the balance I keep talking about. This is
entirly possible however but not necessary.

5. It may even be that evolution is driven by those with no 'target food' whereas those with target food have no need to evolve

If evolution was smart enough to identify the challenges, sure, why not. No proof of it but it is possible.

6. They will have to drink milk because they have no target food. (even though they dont)

Or could it be as simple as there is no such thing as target food?

Target food is based on the understanding of things being in balance.
Things on our planet are not in a good balance so its hard to see what I'm saying here. The reason why this is the way that it is, is because there
were several things, including humans that were placed here out of there element. This upsets the balance of the planet causing other things to fall
off balance. It might even be that the normal rate of death as we know it with wildlife would not be so frequent had the earth not be out of balance.

Right dude, like people harness balloon static to power appliances or harness lightning to run appliances, right.

To quote you again:

I have enough of an education to know electricty is not natural

I have provided you examples of "natural" electricity and proven your statement wrong....admit it...........
Here's something more your speed, ya you can light a bulb from static electricity.....

I did this in 3rd grade...from what institution did you study to become a science major? This is a basic theory of electricity ( notice the word
theory, just like evolution). The ( your) problem is becoming more apparent....you have no clue of the world around you. This is basic stuff
man.....

Here's why we don't harness ( not harvest) electricity from lightning ( hint....it's not feasible at the moment)

Please explain why electricity is not natural? And if it's not natural, please explain why EVERY life form on earth and in the known universe, is
dependent of bio-electrical charges to function. I.E brain synaptic functions, muscle contractions, cellular molecular functions, etc.

You really are a complete fool or just one of the best trolls I've come across......

You also do realize, that magnets are an expression of electrical charge as well? Please explain why compasses' work if there is no "natural"
electricity?

Before you answer, remember this assertion and statement of fact of your's.....

I did this in 3rd grade...from what institution did you study to become a science major? This is a basic theory of electricity ( notice the word
theory, just like evolution). The ( your) problem is becoming more apparent....you have no clue of the world around you. This is basic stuff man.....

Only problem is evolution is also a hypothesis.

Please explain why electricity is not natural? And if it's not natural, please explain why EVERY life form on earth and in the known universe, is
dependent of bio-electrical charges to function. I.E brain synaptic functions, muscle contractions, cellular molecular functions, etc.

You really are a complete fool or just one of the best trolls I've come across......

You also do realize, that magnets are an expression of electrical charge as well? Please explain why compasses' work if there is no "natural"
electricity?

Before you answer, remember this assertion and statement of fact of your's.....

I never said it isn't, I'm saying man made electricty isn't natural.

Please explain why electricity is not natural? And if it's not natural, please explain why EVERY life form on earth and in the known universe, is
dependent of bio-electrical charges to function. I.E brain synaptic functions, muscle contractions, cellular molecular functions, etc.

You really are a complete fool or just one of the best trolls I've come across......

You also do realize, that magnets are an expression of electrical charge as well? Please explain why compasses' work if there is no "natural"
electricity?

Before you answer, remember this assertion and statement of fact of your's.....

Yes it does, and some of it is man made and some of it isn't. There is a big difference you know.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.